Future of Movie Stars: Who Will Shine? Who Will Fade Away?

[topanga]

27 minutes ago, gator12 said:

I don't agree with that, people would have gone seen Jurassic World even if he wasn't in it. It was all about the Dinosaurs and nostalgia. 

That was me. I didn't really know about Chris Pratt other than hearing vague media mentions of his hotness. I went to see Jurassic World because I loved Jurassic Park and still watch it whenever it's on TV. Let's just say that I won't be doing that for Jurassic World. 

[gator12]

1 minute ago, topanga said:

That was me. I didn't really know about Chris Pratt other than hearing vague media mentions of his hotness. I went to see Jurassic World because I loved Jurassic Park and still watch it whenever it's on TV. Let's just say that I won't be doing that for Jurassic World. 

I agree Jurassic Park was a classic. 

I get the feeling that people would have gone seen Jurassic World with Michael Fassbender in the Chris Pratt role and he is consider box office poison. Just see Star Wars. Nostalgia is strong, that why Hollywood try to reboot everything. Unfortunately for them not all of them work out. 

[VCRTracking]

I think this article from Forbes made some good points:

Box Office: Why 'Jurassic World' Was A Smash While 'Independence Day: Resurgence' Flopped

Edited September 1, 2016 by VCRTracking

[vb68]

Quote

I get the feeling that people would have gone seen Jurassic World with Michael Fassbender in the Chris Pratt role and he is consider box office poison. 

Fassbender is considered box office poison?  Really?   I don't think he's hurt those X-Men films.  I mean, I know the one this summer didn't do so great, but as far as I know it didn't have anything to do with him.   I'll agree he doesn't put butts in seats, but I don't think he's a liability either.

Edited September 2, 2016 by vb68

[gator12]

1 hour ago, vb68 said:

Fassbender is considered box office poison?  Really?   I don't think he's hurt those X-Men films.  I mean, I know the one this summer didn't do so great, but as far as I know it didn't have anything to do with him.   I'll agree he doesn't put butts in seats, but I don't think he's a liability either.

That what Forbes said. Here are some quote

Quote

survey from last month is that audience interest in Steve Jobs and Macbeth actually decreased when they were informed that the films starred Michael Fassbender. Maybe he really is box office poison and Sony was right to toss the film once they lost their big “face in the trailer” movie stars. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/10/25/box-office-steve-jobs-is-incredible-hulk-or-princess-and-the-frog/#7004cdce4d41

Quote

The survey also shows that Michael Fassbender may be actual box office poison, viewer interest in Macbeth That Scottish Play and Steve Jobs decreased when surveyors revealed his presence,  but that is a whole separate conversation. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/09/24/hunger-games-mockingjay-part-2-tops-star-wars-the-force-awakens-in-audience-anticipation-poll/#2071298a06f9

To be fair to Michael Fassbender, there are no movie stars anymore, except maybe Leonardo DiCaprio. I think he always bring people to the theater domestically and world wide.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

14 hours ago, gator12 said:

I don't agree with that, people would have gone seen Jurassic World even if he wasn't in it. It was all about the Dinosaurs and nostalgia. 

Who would they go see it for if not Pratt? Bryce Dallas Howard? Dinosaurs and nostalgia, fine, but I don't think they'd have cast Pratt in Jurassic World if he hadn't been in Guardians first. 'Course, I already knew who he was because of Everwood, and I still find it hilarious that Bright Abbott grew up to be a superhero.

[GHScorpiosRule]

48 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Who would they go see it for if not Pratt? Bryce Dallas Howard? Dinosaurs and nostalgia, fine, but I don't think they'd have cast Pratt in Jurassic World if he hadn't been in Guardians first. 'Course, I already knew who he was because of Everwood, and I still find it hilarious that Bright Abbott grew up to be a superhero.

Well, for me, it was for the DINOSAURS!. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see it in the theater, but I would have if I could have. Pratt, I'd never heard of before, and I think I read he was in Guardians, but that wasn't a movie I was interested in seeing so I didn't pay much attention. Howard? The one and only movie of hers I'd seen was from years ago--The Village? It's too late for me to look it up right now, but it was the Shyamlan movie where everybody lived like they were in the 1800s or something.

So yeah, it was allllll about the Dinosaurs for me; of course when I did watch it, it was good, but not as good as the original, as far as I'm concerned. That last fight with Queenie and that human generated Rex/Raptor hybrid was the best thing about it.

Fassbender? Poison? Not in my book. So what if not all of his movies are blockbusters. If I believed everything I read, I wouldn't go to movies. Or the vice versa. He's a very good actor.  I mean, I can't stand Jennifer Lawrence's acting, yet she's all anyone can talk about. And she just lucked into (in my opinion) two popular franchises that catapulted her to success, where she's considered hot property. I hate her take on Mystique. hateithateithateit.  Did I mention I loathe her performance as Mystique?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Fassbender? Poison? Not in my book. So what if not all of his movies are blockbusters. If I believed everything I read, I wouldn't go to movies. Or the vice versa. He's a very good actor.  I mean, I can't stand Jennifer Lawrence's acting, yet she's all anyone can talk about. And she just lucked into (in my opinion) two popular franchises that catapulted her to success, where she's considered hot property. I hate her take on Mystique. hateithateithateit.  Did I mention I loathe her performance as Mystique?

I actually really like Fassbender's acting, and I'm not sure where the idea comes from that he's bad for business box office wise. As for Jennifer Lawrence, I think if she hadn't gotten luck at such a young age, first with Winter's Bone and then with The Hunger Games, she'd have stayed in relative obscurity. I think she's moderately talented, and maybe in a few years she'll be better than she is now, but she's hardly Tilda Swinton. And I quit paying attention to the X Men movies after they insisted on making Wolverine the center of the universe. Jackman's cool and all, but there are other stories.

[gator12]

Pratt was cast in January of 2014 for Jurassic World (at least confirm), Guardians was release in August of 2014 and Jurassic World was release in June of 2015. They had no idea how big Guardian would be when he was cast.  

[vb68]

Quote

I actually really like Fassbender's acting, and I'm not sure where the idea comes from that he's bad for business box office wise. 

 

I agree.  I just find the argument that he's poison pretty harsh, especially basing it on the returns of the Steve Jobs movie.  I don't buy that audience interest for that film was ever going to be very high regardless of who played the lead. 

[JessePinkman]

20 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I think this article from Forbes made some good points:

Box Office: Why 'Jurassic World' Was A Smash While 'Independence Day: Resurgence' Flopped

 

 

Thanks for linking that, I was starting to feel like a crazy person for even suggesting that people would see JW in part for Chris Pratt.

From the article:

Quote

Let’s pretend that you, general moviegoer, had no strong feelings about Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park. What then was Jurassic World offering to you as something worthy of your time and ticket price?  Well, the film featured of-the-moment (and very kid-friendly) star Chris Pratt, fresh off of Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy and Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc.’s The LEGO Movie.

If you were a moviegoer who liked dinosaurs, monster movies, IMAX-friendly blockbusters, Chris Pratt in his prior smash hits, and/or sci-fi adventures about humanity messing with mother nature to disastrous results, Jurassic World was for you. 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by JessePinkman

[ChelseaNH]

The only reason I considered going to see Jurassic World was Chris Pratt.  I am probably not the typical moviegoer, though.

[VCRTracking]

I was a big fan of Chris from Parks and Recreation. He was always a guaranteed laugh getter and a likable presence and was the only assurance that Guardians of the Galaxy might not be a disaster.

As people have noted here in movies Jennifer Lawrence has either been stoic or shouting but she's never been her offscreen bubbly personality.  I know people now find that  goofball side of hers grating, but under a director's control could be amazing, especially paired opposite Pratt. That alone will make me want to check out Passengers. At the very least the press tour is probably going to be fun:

Edited September 2, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Popples]

On 9/1/2016 at 0:13 PM, topanga said:

Me, too. I thought SLP--and Jennifer Lawrence--were over-hyped. But the screaming comment reminds me of Al Pacino, who used to be an incredibly nuanced actor--Godfather II, Dog Day Afternoon, Serpico. Even Scarface, where he screamed a lot, still required him to portray a character who evolved from a wide-eyed Cuban immigrant to a manic drug king-pin. So why does he scream so much now? Why does he always scream, even when his lines of dialogue don't call for it? 

Some people blame it on Scent of a Woman. Since that's the film that finally netted him an Oscar, he's screamed all of his lines ever since. HOO-AH!

[UYI]

8 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I was a big fan of Chris from Parks and Recreation. He was always a guaranteed laugh getter and a likable presence and was the only assurance that Guardians of the Galaxy might not be a disaster.

As people have noted here in movies Jennifer Lawrence has either been stoic or shouting but she's never been her offscreen bubbly personality.  I know people now find that  goofball side of hers grating, but under a director's control could be amazing, especially paired opposite Pratt. That alone will make me want to check out Passengers. At the very least the press tour is probably going to be fun:

 

I know some might consider a more comedic role/romantic comedy "beneath" her at this point, but I'm curious how she would be in roles/movies like that. It might be a much more comfortable fit for her.

(And no, I'm not counting SLP as a romantic comedy here, although I guess compared to her other films it sort of is; still, that role still seemed largely more dramatic than comedic to me). 

[Bruinsfan]

On 9/2/2016 at 10:25 AM, vb68 said:

 

I agree.  I just find the argument that he's poison pretty harsh, especially basing it on the returns of the Steve Jobs movie.  I don't buy that audience interest for that film was ever going to be very high regardless of who played the lead. 

I'd assume that the Ashton Kutcher Jobs biopic a couple years earlier poisoned that particular well. In general, Fassbender will get me to at least consider seeing a movie even if I have no interest in the subject matter.

[ruby24]

On 09/02/2016 at 11:19 AM, VCRTracking said:

 

As people have noted here in movies Jennifer Lawrence has either been stoic or shouting but she's never been her offscreen bubbly personality. 

 

I agree with this. I think traditionally when people become movie stars, it kind of IS their real personality shining through onscreen- their essence, their persona, etc. That's why people did fall in love with Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock, George Clooney. Even someone like Robert Downey, Jr.- he was in movies for years before and he's a great actor, but he didn't become his "movie star" self until Iron Man allowed him to basically put his wisecracking, real life persona into that character.

People say it's not good acting, but that's how people became stars, going all the way back to the 30's. I think it's a different kind of talent- certainly not everyone can shine like that. I would be interested to see that Jennifer Lawrence show up in one of these movies. I guess some people did think SLP was that role for her, but I just saw way too much screaming.

Edited September 4, 2016 by ruby24

[absnow54]

On 9/2/2016 at 11:08 PM, UYI said:

I know some might consider a more comedic role/romantic comedy "beneath" her at this point, but I'm curious how she would be in roles/movies like that. It might be a much more comfortable fit for her.

She was attached to The Rosie Project for a while, and I think that would have been a good, traditional romantic comedy type role for her, but that fell through, and now I think she only has serious Oscar-bait roles lined up -- aside from her Amy Schumer comedy, and I feel like that will just be an amplified version of some of her David O'Russell screaming-roles.

[raezen]

1 hour ago, absnow54 said:

She was attached to The Rosie Project for a while, and I think that would have been a good, traditional romantic comedy type role for her, but that fell through, and now I think she only has serious Oscar-bait roles lined up -- aside from her Amy Schumer comedy, and I feel like that will just be an amplified version of some of her David O'Russell screaming-roles.

They were taking too long to find a Gene. To me they went about it ass backwards casting Rosie before Gene because it was going to be way harder to find a Gene than a Rosie, IMO. 

[Bastet]

Quote

I agree with this. I think traditionally when people become movie stars, it kind of IS their real personality shining through onscreen- their essence, their persona, etc.
...
People say it's not good acting, but that's how people became stars, going all the way back to the 30's. I think it's a different kind of talent- certainly not everyone can shine like that.

This makes me think of the Katharine Hepburn quote: "Show me an actress who isn't a personality and I'll show you a woman who isn't a star.”

[UYI]

16 hours ago, Bastet said:

This makes me think of the Katharine Hepburn quote: "Show me an actress who isn't a personality and I'll show you a woman who isn't a star.”

Well, that explains why Julia Roberts was her favorite actress during the last decade of her life. 

[vibeology]

On September 2, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Who would they go see it for if not Pratt? Bryce Dallas Howard? Dinosaurs and nostalgia, fine, but I don't think they'd have cast Pratt in Jurassic World if he hadn't been in Guardians first. 'Course, I already knew who he was because of Everwood, and I still find it hilarious that Bright Abbott grew up to be a superhero.

I too went for the dinosaurs. That's why I saw the first one. It's the sort of movie where the concept does all the work. I liked Chris Pratt from Parks and Rec, but I wouldnhav gone and seen Jurassic World if it starred the first kid the casting director found at the mall as long as the trailer gave me dinosaurs and that musical theme. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, vibeology said:

I too went for the dinosaurs. That's why I saw the first one. It's the sort of movie where the concept does all the work. I liked Chris Pratt from Parks and Rec, but I wouldnhav gone and seen Jurassic World if it starred the first kid the casting director found at the mall as long as the trailer gave me dinosaurs and that musical theme. 

I remember just from this site, all everyone wanted to see was "Dinosaurs fucking shit up!"  or something like that. The excitement, from what I read, had nothing to do with the humans who were starring in this movie, but the Dinosaurs. And I was part of that group. Nothing better to have the animals humans think they can control, turning on them, and eating them up.

What?

[slf]

I think with Jurassic World it was a case of did the movie look true to the franchise? Did it have the right visuals, did the dinosaurs look great, did it have the right score, did it have a promising plot (for a Jurassic movie), did it look like it would be fun and maybe scary? So long as people felt the answer to all those questions was 'yes' I think people were going to go see it no matter who was cast. I doubt most people went for Pratt and that anyone at all went for Howard. Those two worked because they're inoffensive, attractive, and filling the standard type lead male/lead female roles for the franchise. I'm struggling to think of an actor audiences hate so much they'd refuse to see the movie even if they thought it looked great. Mel Gibson? 

Edited September 6, 2016 by slf

[Bruinsfan]

I'd still have gone and been crossing my fingers that Rexie would eat him.

[ribboninthesky1]

On 8/31/2016 at 4:33 AM, Chas411 said:

After watching Terminator Genisys last night...

Jai Courtney - I can't decide what I think of him. He's a non entity in Suicide Squad and could be considered a movie curse considering any franchise he's part of bombs but after watching him in the Terminator reboot I think there's potential there. I blame bad writing and the miscasting of Sarah Connor for the failure of he film more then I blame him..

Emilia Clarke - horrendously miscast in Terminator. Great in Game of Thrones but kind of overacts in everything else I've seen her in..

Yeah, I think Clarke was a bigger miscast than Courtney.  She wasn't awful, but she didn't make me care about Sarah. I don't dislike Courtney, but I suspect he'll go the way of Sam Worthington, unless he actively seeks villainous roles. Those seem to work for him.    

As for the Jurassic Park franchise - I never got into it, but it's similar to Star Wars in my eyes.  A mix of nostalgia and geeking out over the concept.  Save any major miscasts, people will go see the film.  I'm not a Pratt fan, so I don't see his appeal.  I was probably one of the few who preferred Howard's character. 

[VCRTracking]

Their was a lot of complaints about the movie being sexist toward Bryce Dallas Howard's character and her never taking off her high heels but it gave her some big hero moments too. I like Pratt best when he's playing the lovable goofball like in Parks and Rec. In Jurassic World he was playing the more standard macho leading man action hero type. I saw this interview and then when I saw the movie he was not kidding around!

[methodwriter85]

On 9/6/2016 at 0:07 PM, ribboninthesky1 said:

Yeah, I think Clarke was a bigger miscast than Courtney.  She wasn't awful, but she didn't make me care about Sarah. I don't dislike Courtney, but I suspect he'll go the way of Sam Worthington, unless he actively seeks villainous roles. Those seem to work for him.    

As for the Jurassic Park franchise - I never got into it, but it's similar to Star Wars in my eyes.  A mix of nostalgia and geeking out over the concept.  Save any major miscasts, people will go see the film.  I'm not a Pratt fan, so I don't see his appeal.  I was probably one of the few who preferred Howard's character. 

I liked him as Boomerang in Suicide Squad, and as the punk villain in the Divergent series. I really do think that is where Courtney needs to go. He doesn't have the sexual charisma needed to play the romantic leading young man.

[Ohwell]

16 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

I like Pratt best when he's playing the lovable goofball like in Parks and Rec.

Same here.  I just can't get into macho, badass Chris Pratt.   And for some reason, I also found him sexier with the beer belly like in Parks and Rec.  Don't get me wrong, I don't blame him for getting in shape to play more varied roles, but I just liked him better before.

[ribboninthesky1]

3 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I liked him as Boomerang in Suicide Squad, and as the punk villain in the Divergent series. I really do think that is where Courtney needs to go. He doesn't have the sexual charisma needed to play the romantic leading young man.

He was also a villain in Jack Reacher.  I think he has some sexual potential, but more twisted and dark.  I can't see him as a good guy romantic lead, but maybe he needs the right opposite.  Emilia Clarke was not it. They seemed more like bickering siblings. 

Speaking of Divergent, Shailene Woodley certainly doesn't seem to be an it-girl anymore. And what's going on with Theo James? Besides that awful-looking installment of the Underworld franchise?   

[methodwriter85]

19 minutes ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

He was also a villain in Jack Reacher.  I think he has some sexual potential, but more twisted and dark.  I can't see him as a good guy romantic lead, but maybe he needs the right opposite.  Emilia Clarke was not it. They seemed more like bickering siblings. 

Speaking of Divergent, Shailene Woodley certainly doesn't seem to be an it-girl anymore. And what's going on with Theo James? Besides that awful-looking installment of the Underworld franchise?   

It's amazing how being the face of a franchise that cratered would do that someone's career.

Although honestly she's got stuff coming up- the Snowden biopic with Oliver Stone, and an HBO mini-series. I've always pictured her as a "long star" as opposed to a "big" star anyway.  She's saying "No" to filming Divergent Part 4 as  t.v. movie, and honestly, I don't blame her. It's not her fault or her problem that Lionsgate jumbled everything so badly.

[SeanC]

Woodley was a burgeoning indie darling who (understandably) took a big franchise part that didn't really pan out (though I'm sure the $$$ were welcome).  I'd say she'll be moving into the next phase of her career, back to focusing more on smaller stuff (though an anticipated HBO project isn't really "small").

[Chas411]

5 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

He was also a villain in Jack Reacher.  I think he has some sexual potential, but more twisted and dark.  I can't see him as a good guy romantic lead, but maybe he needs the right opposite.  Emilia Clarke was not it. They seemed more like bickering siblings. 

Jack Teacher - i remember myself and the hubby to be going to see that on our second date and almost walking out cos of how bad it was. To this day I still have no clue what it was about.

Agreed - his Kyle Reese was wasted on Clarkes Sarah Connor. I blame her for that more then him. The way she played Satah was like a moody child trying to play grown ups. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Chas411

[VCRTracking]

Quote

Jack Teacher - i remember myself and the hubby to be going to see that on our second date and almost walking out cos of how bad it was. To this day I still have no clue what it was about.

Jack Reacher tries to clear the name of a soldier who was framed for a sniper massacre by a criminal gang led by an ex-Soviet gulag prisoner played by Werner Herzog.

Edited September 9, 2016 by VCRTracking

[kiddo82]

Shaillene Woodley has less screen presence than an orange peel.  

[methodwriter85]

19 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Shaillene Woodley has less screen presence than an orange peel.  

I reject that out of hand. I think the thing about her is that she's understated in her acting- she's more lowkey and natural. She's better suited to indie character studies than big blockbusters. The Fault in Our Stars worked because she had really good chemistry with Ansel and it was a smaller movie that just happened to do big business.

[Danny Franks]

Shailene Woodley was good in The Descendants, but that's all I've seen her in. Of course, that was more of an indie character study than a blockbuster, so perhaps that is her niche.

To be honest, I don't think much good acting ever goes on in big blockbusters. But it usually doesn't matter. Jennifer Lawrence was laughably bad in the Hunger Games movies, but they've done nothing but enhance her stardom.

One actress who does have presence, and an almost transcendent beauty, is Sarah Gadon. She was captivating in 11.22.63, and I've seen her in a couple of other things since. I hope her career takes off.

[AimingforYoko]

5 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

One actress who does have presence, and an almost transcendent beauty, is Sarah Gadon. She was captivating in 11.22.63, and I've seen her in a couple of other things since. I hope her career takes off.

If she were born 75 years ago, she could've been a "Hitchcock Blonde".

[methodwriter85]

So, Millie Bobby Brown and the relatively unknown child actor cast of Stranger Things have basically been catapulted into stardom essentially overnight. I think it's interesting how Netflix has changed the game- it's kind of similar to how YouTube can make a star out of someone literally in five seconds, as opposed to how it used to take awhile for a t.v. show on the traditional format to take hold and make stars out of people.

Millie is being compared to Young Natalie Portman, and the cast is doing interviews like everywhere. It's going to be interesting to see how these child stars (as well as the "teen set" cast of Natalia Dyer, Charlie Heaton, and Joe Keery) deal with their newfound fame, and who's going to capitalize well on it.

Finn Wolfhard is filming "It" apparently right now...it'll be interesting to see if that movie does well.

Edited September 11, 2016 by methodwriter85

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

Finn Wolfhard is filming "It" apparently right now...it'll be interesting to see if that movie does well.

That name should always be accompanied by an electric guitar riff whenever it is spoken.

A good TV series is really the best thing for preteen/early teens actors, in my opinion.  It provides several years of continuous employment/spotlight, whereas a child actor who gets a splashy debut role will usually struggle to find anything remotely as good.  Look at, e.g., Hailee Steinfeld, who had about as auspicious a debut as you could hope for, but went years afterward without finding anything nearly as high-profile, and logged a lot of parts as somebody's daughter or whatever.

Sophie Turner and Maisie Williams from Game of Thrones are, very conveniently, just reaching the age where there's more stuff available for them to audition for as the show nears its end.

[Ambrosefolly]

It helped Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was cast in Third Rock from the Sun before his voice cracked and did a soft leave when he could audition for more adult parts, but that was after several years. He might have been labeled with the "teen heart throb" moniker, but all of his co stars were adults/almost senior senior citizens (not to mention fantastic actors as well, I would love for him to work with John Lithgow again), and he played the oldest character who happened to be in the body of a teenager, which is loads better than the standard fare 90s teen sitcoms. 

[VCRTracking]

Quote

To be honest, I don't think much good acting ever goes on in big blockbusters. But it usually doesn't matter. Jennifer Lawrence was laughably bad in the Hunger Games movies, but they've done nothing but enhance her stardom.

I disagree. The way the character is written, she's not supposed to be warm and gregarious person. Luckily Woody Harrelson's character is always calling her out on it.  And I liked Daisy Ridley acting a lot in The Force Awakens.

Quote

Hailee Steinfeld, who had about as auspicious a debut as you could hope for, but went years afterward without finding anything nearly as high-profile, and logged a lot of parts as somebody's daughter or whatever.

Speaking of Woody and Hailee I have hopes for Edge of Seventeen. Hailee who in real life besides acting is an aspiring pop singer like her pal Taylor Swift is very convincing as a dorky loser and Woody's funny as the teacher:

[Bruinsfan]

I've been really impressed with Chris Evans' acting in his Marvel blockbusters, particularly the ones with his character as the protagonist. I actually think he's turning in better performances in those than Mark Ruffalo, an Oscar-caliber actor.

[VCRTracking]

Yeah, I always knew as this "frat bro"-type of guy like his Johnny Storm in the Fantastic Four movies. When he was first announced as Captain America I was skeptical that he could play a square kind of goody-goody kind of hero but he pulled it off. Not only was he believable playing a sincere and earnest character but also having a wry sense of humor and self awareness too.

[raezen]

56 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Yeah, I always knew as this "frat bro"-type of guy like his Johnny Storm in the Fantastic Four movies. When he was first announced as Captain America I was skeptical that he could play a square kind of goody-goody kind of hero but he pulled it off. Not only was he believable playing a sincere and earnest character but also having a wry sense of humor and self awareness too.

It serves as a nice little reminder that actors don't need access to Oscar bait every year to be seen stretching themselves. 

[methodwriter85]

I've been a fan of Chris Evans ever since "Not Another Teen Movie", and I was a little bit skeptical about him playing a sincere character, because he's always been so good at that smirking frat bro thing.

I kind of wonder if Scott Evans might have been somewhere better if he hadn't gotten sidetracked by his cocaine addiction. He doesn't have his brother's matinee idol looks, but he's "t.v. good-looking" and I thought he showed decent acting chops on "One Life to Live". I'd like to think his lack of momentum is based more on his drug issues than him being openly gay.

[Bruinsfan]

I knew he had subtle and affecting performances in him after seeing The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond, but I really didn't expect him to break out that kind of dramatic effort for a blockbuster comic book movie. Captain America: The First Avenger was quite the surprise. (He's also pretty good at comedy, Playing It Cool notwithstanding.)

[BatmanBeatles]

Chris Evans was fun in Scott Pilgrim vs The World.

[methodwriter85]

Man. Remember when Michael Cera was considered a hot property for a brief moment at the end of the 2000's?

BTW, I HATED Paper Hearts. Oh, my god, I hated it. Charlyne Yi should not be allowed to sing.

[DollEyes]

23 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

I knew [Chris Evans] had subtle and affecting performances in him after seeing The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond, but I really didn't expect him to break out that kind of dramatic effort for a blockbuster comic book movie. Captain America: The First Avenger was quite the surprise. (He's also pretty good at comedy, Playing It Cool notwithstanding.)

He's even better in well-written, atmospheric horror movies, if Snowpiercer is any indication. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by DollEyes